About your Search

20121002
20121010
STATION
CNN 2
CNNW 2
FBC 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
CNBC 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
WETA 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
on twitter from former head of ge, jack welch. >> welch is one of america's most rebe inspected former ceo's. so when he tweets, people tend to listen. within minutes of the jobs report he tweeted quote, unbelievable jobs numbers. this chicago guys will do anything, can't debate so change numbers and facing a torrent of criticism for that. welch stopped by his tweet and those numbers. >> this whole number is made up of a whole mess of an assumptions who is participating and who is not working and who is trying to work, but dropped out. all of these things, it just raises the question, oh, i think there ought to be a good discussion about how this number is calculated. >> and most analysts aren't dismissing his crimsism as utterly without evidence and at the same time pointing out that the jobs numbers reflect an obama policy that has the economy stuck in neutral. >> they had full charge of the first two years and the policies that this president put into place actually made it worse, including the fact that obamacare is actually, you ask small employers, it's causing them not to hire becau
there that are blasting jack welch should be doing their job and investigating the number rather than investigating what josh welch -- jack well were has to say. >>neil: in other words investigate how he came up with that snub? >>guest: this is like like the greatest expansion in history. the none came out of left field. someone has to explain. no one is explaining the number but to say, well, this is what we came up with. >>neil: sort of like the hotel scales that show me five pounds less than i know i am. i will buy that. i will stick with that. gary, always a pleasure. thank you very much. >>guest: my pleasure, thank you. >>neil: by the way, talk about a jump on the competition. this young lady was back flipping her way into the record books. it is true. but we have something we think you are going to flip over more. our coverage is thursday at the vice presidential debate live from kentucky, all kicking off at 4:00 p.m. eastern on fox and then we are back at it at 8:00, four hours nonstop coverage. where we end up, no one knows but it is exciting because you never know would will drop by as we gauge
. you are jack welch. jack, you've got to take this opportunity while everybody is listening to you to actually say, yes, anderson, i'm taking that tweet back. i'm going to send a new tweet to say i was exaggerating. there are problems bls should look into but to throw out an accusation that's like asking the government how often do you beat your wife. >> i should have had a question mark at the back of it, ali, let's face it, but the facts, are ali, no matter how you want to look at this, we had 25 economists polled before this number came out. the average number they expected was about 115,000. not one of them -- >> yes. >> had a number below 1.1. >> labor secretary hilda so li s shot back at the critics telling cnn it was insulting for people to suggest her department was manipulating numbers for the president's benefit. >>> the obama and romney campaigns are ratcheting up the rhetoric in the wake of the jobs report. our political editor paul steinhauser hats candidate's comments. one set of numbers, two sets of eyes. >> yeah, very, very different responses to the friday jobs rep
. doug we talked about a tweet from jack welch. did that ignite the controversy? >>reporter: the recovery surrounding friday's release of the unemployment numbers continues to swirl after jack welch, the respected former c.e.o. of g.e. treated "unbelievable jobs numbers. the chicago guys will do anything. can't debate? change numbers." facing criticism if the tweet he stuck by the criticism of the numbers. >> this number is made up of a whole mess of assumptions: who is participating, who is not working, who is trying for work, who has dropped out. it just begs the question. i think there ought to be a good discussion how this number is calculated. >>reporter: most analysts and the obama campaign are dismanage the criticisms as "without evidence." >> we wonder why institutions in this country are, the perception of institutions are failing, because people go on tv and make sufficient h stuff -- make stuff up. >> they had full charge of the first two years and the policies this president put into place actually made it worse, including the fact that obamacare is tale, if you ask employers,
employment surged 873,000, but payroll says only 114,000 people went back to work. even jack welch said it, hard to reconcile these numbers. he tweeted, unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate so they change the numbers. that is harsh criticism. here with me is economist peter morici. which also have gary burtless, senior fellow? [no audio. what do you think. what a difference between the two surveys. peter, start with you. >> the bls is not cooking the numbers. i believe that. they don't do such a thing. there a anomalies. household survey counts self-employed people. a lot of people established home based business. they have been dissipating savings. that doesn't mean they're fully employed. to have 800,000 jobs created that would be 6% gain in employment in one month. that would be 135% rate per year, or some big number like that. that's crazy. on a compounded basis in economy growing only 1 1/2% a year. that's just silly. my feeling it is a lot of folks, home based businesses. pick up a little more here and there but they're not really fully employe
with numbers here. jobs numbers. a big supporter of your campaign, jack welch, sent out a tweet on friday after the unemployment report came out showing 7.8% unemployment, and jack welch wrote unbelieve jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything, can't debate so change the numbers. do you stand by this comment from jack welch? do you think that the white house cooked the numbers in the jobs report? >> well look, we're just going to talk about the facts. there's 23 million americans who are unemployed. they're either looking for a job, they are giving up or underemployed. if we just look at the numbers and take that for what it's worth, and i don't know that we have to say much more about whether the numbers have been cooked or not. >> the numbers are also 7.8% unemployment the lowest since president obama was inaugurated, correct? >> well, let's take a look at those numbers and take a little deeper look and say, for those who are not looking for a job any longer, they're not in the work place. they're not in the work participation. if you were to add those to those numbers, we'd have abo
questioned the accuracy of the data. on twitter, former general electric c.e.o. jack welch suggested the obama administration manipulated the numbers. but on cnbc, labor secretary hilda solis called that claim "ludicrous" and defended the bureau of labor statistics. >> you know, i'm insulted when i hear that,ecause we have a very professional civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the b.l.s. >> brown: the employment numbers landed as the campaigns put up new ads attacking each other on jobs and taxes. >> president obama says he's creating jobs. but he's really creating debt. the facts are clear. obama's four deficits are the four largest in u.s. history. he's adding almost as much debt as all 43 previous presidents combined. and over 30 cents of every dollar obama spends is borrowed, much of it from countries like china. he's not just wasting money; he's borrowing it and then wasting it. we can't afford four more years. >> why won't romney level with us about his tax plan, which gives the wealthy huge new tax breaks? because, according to experts,
the jobs number doesn't matter. is that in part this whole jack welch thing over the weekend around whether the numbers are real, does that matter in all of this? >> i think the jack welch stuff was crazy talk. and earlier in the year when you guys were down in washington on this, joe and i talked about it, there were between points that i would make. one, nobody messes or manipulates these numbers. but, took i think we exaggerate the importance of the numbers for this reason. the people who will vote on november the 6th know what they feel about the economy already. they're living it every day. so because there's a headline that says 7.8, it's a talking point, but they already know what their friends and neighbors are doing. >> when do we find out how romney is fun raising compared to that 180 million or whatever? >> i think if it was so par with obama's, we would have heard already. i think it's probably behind. >> you don't hear that that's unbecoming to have so much money to spend. just don't hear -- it's alway s the republicans. >> it's not decided by money. nice to have, but there is
his anniversary on the night of the debate. >> peter: and interesting 7.8% number, economists and jack welch, where did this come from, the raw numbers put out and a disconnect. >> clayton: we have to look the at revised numbers a few months later and maybe find out in december what the true number was or were in september. but we have new numbers out of ohio. the all important battle ground state of ohio where president obama has been leading significantly there. in recent polls, well not significantly, but 5 or 4 points accord to go what karl rove was talking about, 49-50%. and looking at virginia, and there mitt romney has pulled ahead of president obama 49-48% within the mar begin of error, but definitely experiencing a debate bounce. and speaking of which, let's talk about the money they have been able to raise because this plays into how people are feeling after the debate as well. in just the 48 hours since the debate, mitt romney has been able to raise 12 million dollars online and just staggering numbers. >> peter: at the same time, the president announced that they raised 181
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)